Here’s my take on the Randi material about Victor Zammit. Randi’s words in bold. There are lots of quotes within the section (he’s responding to someone else’s letter, which I do not quote below), making it hard to respond precisely, but I’ll try to be fair. The link was previously posted in this thread.
Victor Zammit, B.A.(Psych), Grad. Dip. Ed.(UTS), M.A.(Legal Hist.), LL.B(UNSW), Ph.D, lawyer, Euro-Australian, a retired Solicitor of the Supreme Court of the New South Wales and the High Court of Australia.
Okay. So he has laurels.
Too bad we can’t dismiss him out of hand. I’ve snipped the pejorative-plentiful lead paragraph that uses words such as “frothing.”
We are not in the business of proving a negative. Tell Zammit to prove the existence of life after death. We don’t claim there is none; if he claims there is, let him prove it.
Fair as far as it goes. But VZ’s point is that the evidence is so strong at this point that it deserves to be taken seriously. Instead, the skeptics dismiss it, no matter what. VZ is also trying to call attention to Randi’s impossible challenge with one of his own.
It took a long time for me to decide to forswear further discussions with those who show no signs of being able to support an argument on logical, rational, grounds.
Yeah, I understand the feeling!
Now, I simply tell them that I’ve no time to spend feeding their egos in fruitless back-and-forth exchanges.
Because even discussing these matters with the Amazing Randi is true food for the ego!
As I’ve said, Zammit’s offer is perfectly safe, for him.
And Randi’s, for him. Same deal.
He lists a huge amount of anecdotal evidence, quotes long-dead scientists such as Crookes and Lodge — who as soon as they left their field of expertise, also left behind their ability to reason dispassionately — and he demands that we impugn and refute all such material as if it were real evidence.
Bullshit. The quotes by Crookes et al. are on the top page; the evidence to be rebutted are in the chapters of the on-line book.
Now, lawyers are accustomed to be allowed to drag in all sorts of “evidence” to support an argument. Often it’s the quantity of material, rather than the quality, that they depend upon. Also, lawyers are name-droppers by nature; a title or a position, fame or fortune, can color the validity of their “experts.” Juries are frequently awed by such material. That’s one reason lawyers prefer that scientists — and magicians, I can testify! — are excluded from their juries. I trust that my readers are, from a lawyer’s viewpoint, unwelcome jurors.
Innuendo, nothing more. I like how he flatters his readers with the last sentence.
I think that Zammit’s hysterical reaction is evidence of his frenzy, of his desperate need for evidence he seeks but does not find.
Sadly, Randi is partially right here. I have told VZ myself that some of what he puts on his top page—Susan Blackmore is going to hell, etc.—is not productive. I share VZ’s frustration with self-labeled skeptics, however, who believe themselves to be knights of science while trashing logic and dismissing exceptionally good evidence.
Imagine being faced with an opponent who claims, “I’m 200 years old, and I perform chants every day that perfectly effect a system whereby my aging process is negated. Prove that my claim is false.” No amount of reasoning, of producing records, of testing, of introducing experts, will prove his claim to be false. Exactly the same circumstance applies to Zammit.
Huh? The claim of being 200 years old sounds pretty concrete to me. Either there’s proof of it or not. And time will tell whether this dude actually ages or not. Shit-poor example here.
Challenged to produce evidence that his claim is true, Zammit tries to reverse the responsibility in the argument. It’s his only recourse.
Hogshit. VZ has assembled mountains of evidence in his on-line book. Has Randi even read it? The $1M prize is a joke, but that’s little more than a spoof of Randi’s, anyway.
And, if I won’t fall for that ploy (remember, he claims to be a lawyer!) he persists in blustering and obfuscating. But I urge you to go to Zammit’s web page — listed above — to see the full extent of his incredible philosophy and attachment to the ridiculous.
Yes, I also recommend the same, but for different reasons.
For one example, he uses numerology to establish what he believes to be a plausible connection between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein! Just read this single statement, which begins his numerology essay, and you’ll have an excellent insight into his logic: [snip quote]
Fine, a decent dig. Not really related to VZ’s core competency, however.
More blather appears on his web page about the “Akashic Records,” the “Seven Laws of Psychic Energy,” and an hilarious piece about Nostradamus in which he locates New York City “between forty and forty-five degrees.” Pray tell, East, West, North, or South? And for his information, the heart of NYC is at 73 57’ West, 40 45’ North.
Same thing, although more of an insinuation of a dig than an actual dig.
Then Zammit asks, in an essay, “Who are Silver Birch and White Eagle?” and answers us. [snip quote] So, if you still have any doubt about Zammit’s naivety, please refer on his web page to what these two Indian “guides” have to tell us. I think we can conclude that the man is a total mystic, unrealistic, and uninformed. And he’s a practicing lawyer…?
Typical Randi unpleasantness. The man is just plain nasty. But that doesn’t make him wrong, no. What makes him wrong is his cheap-dig rhetoric (innuendo, etc.) and extensive use of sophistry.
Victor is not perfect, but his on-line book is an exceptional summary of evidence for the afterlife.